Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexwe didn't have _[[face]]_

   we didn’t have face

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat's your source for this? Wikipedia seems to disagree that it has to be 2-dimensional.

   What’s your source for this? Wikipedia seems to disagree that it has to be 2-dimensional.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSure. I don't think we need Wikipedia for that. I added a line.

   Sure. I don’t think we need Wikipedia for that. I added a line.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI have seen 'facet' also used and 'face' might be restricted to when it can be 'face of' something higher dimensional (usually by 1, not more).

   I have seen ’facet’ also used and ’face’ might be restricted to when it can be ’face of’ something higher dimensional (usually by 1, not more).

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2018
   • (edited Jan 16th 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexBy the way, while my entry was clearly stubby, it never said that a face has to be 2-dimensional. If we want to have a fight, I'd rather we have it over something substantial. I am announcing these kinds of trivial edits in order to stick to the etiquette of this particular forum, which, in its role as the "talk-pages" of the nLab, is the place to record edits to the $n$Lab, trivial as they may be. I'd hope this goes without saying. I won't further touch this entry. All I needed is for a link to "face" in the discussion of [[loop order]] of Feynman diagrams to point somewhere. Anyone who feels encyclopedic is invited to work on making this entry the definite source for face-theory on the web.

   By the way, while my entry was clearly stubby, it never said that a face has to be 2-dimensional. If we want to have a fight, I’d rather we have it over something substantial. I am announcing these kinds of trivial edits in order to stick to the etiquette of this particular forum, which, in its role as the “talk-pages” of the nLab, is the place to record edits to the $n$Lab, trivial as they may be. I’d hope this goes without saying.

   I won’t further touch this entry. All I needed is for a link to “face” in the discussion of loop order of Feynman diagrams to point somewhere. Anyone who feels encyclopedic is invited to work on making this entry the definite source for face-theory on the web.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJan 17th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex> it never said that a face has to be 2-dimensional It did say that a "2-cell" is called a face. I suppose one might find exotic structures in which "2-cells" need not be 2-dimensional, but usually they are.

   it never said that a face has to be 2-dimensional

   It did say that a “2-cell” is called a face. I suppose one might find exotic structures in which “2-cells” need not be 2-dimensional, but usually they are.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJan 17th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexUrs #5: I think you overreacted. My question was an honest one, and I wasn't picking a fight.

   Urs #5: I think you overreacted. My question was an honest one, and I wasn’t picking a fight.